MVNHS© - Ouch!

Such is the (potential) future of American health care:

"Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS."

British doc's are warning that a recent decision by the MVNHS© (Much Vaunted National Health System) that patients whose back pain has no discernible cause will be denied much-needed pain meds. Of course, in keeping with the British mandate of tossing the elderly under the tram, this edict is expected to affect seniors first. And since most live on fixed incomes, the $830 cost of a single injection is likely to be a real pain in the...well, you know.

Of course, the Law of Unintended Consequences also makes a cameo:

"(T)he British Pain Society, which represents specialists in the field, has written to NICE calling for the guidelines to be withdrawn after its members warned that they would lead to many patients having to undergo unnecessary and high-risk spinal surgery."

That's because - at least so far - such surgeries are covered by "The System,"and therefore more attractive than continuing to live a life of pain.

But the Brits aren't the only ones feeling the tender foot of government-sponsored health care rationing on the backs of their necks:

"In Britain, France, Switzerland and elsewhere, public health systems have become political punching bags for opposition parties, costs have skyrocketed and in some cases, patients have needlessly suffered and died."

Ooops.

Or, as the French would say, "quelle surpise!"

That European health care would become a political soccerball is, of course, to be expected. We see that here, and people are, after all, people. What is surprising, however, is how many Americans want to emulate the "success" of such a system here, at the expense of our own mostly successful experience.

The challenge is that, unless one has a realistic plan to rein in health care costs, the financing of that care (i.e. insurance) becomes problematic:

"A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world's best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988.

In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decade later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 billion)."

A not unexpected development, especially for folks who've been paying attention. Or, to put it another way:

"I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system."

Such, for example, has been the experience in Tennessee:

"A government-run health insurance plan is enacted on the promise of increasing competition and bringing down costs, but over the years, as more people leave their private insurance to take the “public option,” the cost to operate the government plan skyrockets."

Sound familiar?

We last blogged on TennCare two years ago, and noted then that the program was in deep financial straits:

"The Tennessee government initially offered a generous benefits package. Predictably, costs skyrocketed because patients had no incentives to spend prudently. In response, the government attempted to control costs by slashing payments to doctors and hospitals."

Of course, it's only gotten worse:

"Tennessee is in the process of cutting about 150,000 people from the TennCare program after a reevaluation of enrollee eligibility to participate in the state-run insurance program."

Of course, when it's a national plan, eligibility becomes more, um, interesting . And the issue of costs becomes even more pronounced. Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn was a mere state senator when TennCare came into being; she recalls that "supporters of the Tennessee program said it would save money, [but] it wound up eating 38 percent of the state’s budget." One wonders if CongressCritters wouldn't consider that 38% as a feature, not a bug.